Have conservative broadcasters betrayed the Pro-Life movement?

[consumedconvert]

Has this occurred to anyone else? The major conservative talking–heads-Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, and most of the rest–used to talk a lot about the importance combatting abortion, when it was a Republican vs. Democrat issue. But now that some in thre Republican party are pro-choice, the talking-heads have stopped talking about it, or equivicate. Their commentary now focuses on immigration policy, security, or tax policy-all morally secondary, next to abortion, if you ask me. Is this a moral sell-out? At what price would the Conservative press see a Republican in office?

 

[whatevergirl]

I think that the republican candidates are ‘selling out,’ not the broadcasters. They are trying to cover a lot of issues, and what is sad is that pretty soon, one won’t be able to tell the Democratic issues from the Conservative Rep. ones. The party is betraying us loyal replublicans…not the broadcasters. I see your point, just my 2 cents, though.

 

[consumedconvert]

I think that the republican candidates are ‘selling out,’ not the broadcasters. They are trying to cover a lot of issues, and what is sad is that pretty soon, one won’t be able to tell the Democratic issues from the Conservative Rep. ones. The party is betraying us loyal replublicans…not the broadcasters. I see your point, just my 2 cents, though.

Hmm, true. And the press just supports them. Still, I would at LEAST like to see the so-called “conservative” (but really just “Republican”) talking heads criticize Pro-choice republican candidates. But I think very many Republicans would sell the soul of the party to land a seat in the white house. And then who will faithful anti-abortion Catholics be able to vote for?

 

[whatevergirl]

Hmm, true. And the press just supports them. Still, I would at LEAST like to see the so-called “conservative” (but really just “Republican”) talking heads criticize Pro-choice republican candidates. But I think very many Republicans would sell the soul of the party to land a seat in the white house. And then who will faithful anti-abortion Catholics be able to vote for?

True. I need to find the literature I have on responsible Catholic voting…I recall reading/hearing from a priest on a talk show, that if a candidate is pro choice…on both sides, Democratic and Republican, you might need to look at the other underlying important issues. There is still an obligation to vote-not from a moral standpoint, but a legal/secular one.

My husband said that the Supreme Court Judges are the ones who ultimately decide the laws. It would be the election of those that we would have more concern over, and that the President does not have exclusive power to enact abortion bans, laws, etc…which is true. It is harder to vote now than ever.

 

[ahollars]

If you think pro-choice Republicans have not been criticized, then you haven’t been listening. We as Catholics have no one to blame but ourselves if the President is pro-choice. How many of us speak up when we don’t hear the unborn mentioned during the petitions at mass?

 

[Dwyer]

I read some recent George Will columns; he basically said gave the official song and dance that it doesn’t matter who the President is as long as he appoints pro-life Supreme Court Justices. I was dissappointed in this column and some of his other ones.

BTW, do not mention the candidates here at all, because, according to the Forum Rules, they can’t be discussed.

?

So this thread will probably go by the wayside also.

Look at George W. Bush (not a candidate ), the Conservative; first he said “Supreme Court Justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.” Then he appointed his female Chief of Staff who was in the mold of no one because she never was a judge. Then the big Conservative uproar and the discovery of a Pro-Choice statement she had made at some public function.

Public affairs don’t look good; I still vote, and I still vote according to Catholic principles, and I still oppose abortion (it is monstrous); however, I realize America is a very secularized country, it’s media, politics, its schools and universities. That’s the way it is.

We can live moral lives, lives of morality, and be examples to others.

 

[consumedconvert]

If you think pro-choice Republicans have not been criticized, then you haven’t been listening. We as Catholics have no one to blame but ourselves if the President is pro-choice. How many of us speak up when we don’t hear the unborn mentioned during the petitions at mass?

Woah, back up a bit! There are still genuinely pro-life candidates still in it for the Republican nomination. And I reject the notion that everything is “Catholics fault” if the nation goes awry; we (particularly we who are more than culturally Catholic) are by far outnumbered, and not the only people who live here, after all. Statistically, Protestants outnumber us 2 to 1, nationally, and then there are those with little or no religious affiliation.

I am currently supporting someone who holds most of my moral beliefs, including my pro-life beliefs. My beef is with those who are so braced for a pro-abortion Republican winning the primary (God forbid!) that they refuse to denounce abortion or those who support it. If a pro-abort does win the Republican nomination, it could effectively be the end of the pro-life platform.

But that doesn’t have to happen, now does it?

 

[ishii]

Here is how I see it: We must work hard and pray that a pro-life candidate becomes president. Since R V. Wade the Republican party has been the party that has consistently supported the pro-life cause, though it has fallen short as a pro-life party all too often. Still, there are enough pro-life Republicans in government (Senate, house, etc.) that this statement holds true: We are more likely to get a pro-life supreme court justice (i.e. strict contructionist) with a Republican president, *]even if the president is weak on abortion or actually pro-choice * than we would if we had a Democrat for president. That being said, we should also pray for the conversion of pro-choice Republicans and Democrats as well, while working to elect pro-choice candidates. Prayer is powerful. BTW, we lost a great pro-life warrior with the death of Henry Hyde recently. His Hyde amendment is said to have saved the life of thousands of unborn babies, if not more. He made a huge difference as a pro-life congressman. Ishii

 

[consumedconvert]

Here is how I see it: We must work hard and pray that a pro-life candidate becomes president. Since R V. Wade the Republican party has been the party that has consistently supported the pro-life cause, though it has fallen short as a pro-life party all too often. Still, there are enough pro-life Republicans in government (Senate, house, etc.) that this statement holds true: We are more likely to get a pro-life supreme court justice (i.e. strict contructionist) with a Republican president, *]even if the president is weak on abortion or actually pro-choice *

than we would if we had a Democrat for president. That being said, we should also pray for the conversion of pro-choice Republicans and Democrats as well, while working to elect pro-choice candidates. Prayer is powerful. BTW, we lost a great pro-life warrior with the death of Henry Hyde recently. His Hyde amendment is said to have saved the life of thousands of unborn babies, if not more. He made a huge difference as a pro-life congressman. Ishii

I see your point, Ishii, and a while back I would have agreed with you. As it stands now, I WILL NOT support a candidate who backs abortion, no matter which party he or she belongs to. I can’t believe that a person who personally supports abortion will proactively work to limit and/or make appointments of people who will overturn Roe V Wade. Major trust issue there.

If that happens, I’ll vote third party or write-in a candidate. I refuse to reward the republican party for betraying the Pro-Life movement.

 

[aurora77]

It does seem to me that a lot of them are selling out. I was listening to Laura Ingraham several weeks ago and she had Ralph Reed (I think, head of the Christian Coalition) and she just couldn’t get him to say why the pro-life side of the Republican party is expected to cave in on our beliefs. It seems like people are so terrified of the Democrats (I am too) that they are willing to sacrifice their beliefs to see a Republican win.

I’ve really struggled with this issue and believe that this is why the primaries are so important. If the powers that be want to cram a pro-abortion Republican down our throats, we the people need to step up and do our parts to prevent that.

I especially take issue with politicians claiming to be Catholic, yet advocating positions contrary to Church teaching. I’m just as much a sinner as the next person, but I can’t vote for someone who openly makes a mockery of my faith.

 

[DixiesFinest]

Hmm, true. And the press just supports them. Still, I would at LEAST like to see the so-called “conservative” (but really just “Republican”) talking heads criticize Pro-choice republican candidates. But I think very many Republicans would sell the soul of the party to land a seat in the white house. And then who will faithful anti-abortion Catholics be able to vote for?

Though politics is not technically supposed to be discussed, his last name is “Paul,” his first name is “Ron,” and he wants to follow the Constitution and put power and choice back into the hands of the people…just throwing that out there

 

[ishii]

Consumed Convert, it would be very difficult for me to vote for any pro-abortion candidate. But here’s a question: you have a choice between a Democrat for president and a Republican. There almost certainly will be a supreme court vacancy in the next few years, and there are currently four reliably pro-life justices on the bench. A Democrat president will absolutely nominate a pro-abortion justice. A Republican president, even a pro-choice one like Gulliani, would be under pressure by other Republicans to nominate a pro-life justice. With the Democrats, there is zero chance for a pro-life justice. With a vote for a third party candidate there is zero chance for a pro-life justice, but you get to feel good about your vote. With the Republicans atleast you have a chance. I think you have to think of the reality of politics here and understand that in the real world, you have to make a choice. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is all we can get. Thanks for your comment though. Ishii

 

[manualman]

Anyone wonder if the republicans were just using us and spouting pro-life rhetoric when it was cheap to secure our votes without the sincere intention of doing anything about it?

I find it quite odd that the talking heads have gone nearly silent on the issue now that we are suddenly one vote shy of demolishing Roe vs Wade.

I wonder if they just liked our vote while the other side was complacent that we could not really do anything. Now that one more SC judge would change everything, they are terrified of the political consequences of succeeding at their stated goals - cowards.

 

[ChangingHeart]

I don’t see abortion as ever becoming a “resolved once and for all” issue in America, at least not until The Second Coming of Christ. Even if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, there will be a constant political battle to get the overturning overturned.

The bottom line is that the Constitution means whatever the majority of the Supreme Court members want it to mean. It essentially is interpreted using the same methodology used by Protestants in interpreting the Bible. The interpretation is based on individual comprehension skills which are influenced by personal agendas and prejudice.

As Catholics, we are used to infallible declarations, but let us remember that it was mostly Protestants who founded our country. Therefore, the Constitution takes on the same weaknesses as a Sola-Scriptura approach to the Bible, that it can be declared to mean whatever the interpreter wants it to mean, rather than having a clear infallible consistent interpretation that can be traced back over the years.

 

[consumedconvert]

I don’t see abortion as ever becoming a “resolved once and for all” issue in America, at least not until The Second Coming of Christ. Even if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, there will be a constant political battle to get the overturning overturned.

The bottom line is that the Constitution means whatever the majority of the Supreme Court members want it to mean. It essentially is interpreted using the same methodology used by Protestants in interpreting the Bible. The interpretation is based on individual comprehension skills which are influenced by personal agendas and prejudice.

As Catholics, we are used to infallible declarations, but let us remember that it was mostly Protestants who founded our country. Therefore, the Constitution takes on the same weaknesses as a Sola-Scriptura approach to the Bible, that it can be declared to mean whatever the interpreter wants it to mean, rather than having a clear infallible consistent interpretation that can be traced back over the years.

You’re right in a sense; the Constitution was obviously meant to mean something, permanently. But since there is no firmly grounded interpritive authority, it can be read to mean anything.

Thus it has limitations. When moral law clearly contradicts interpretations of that document–and even if it contradicted our constitution itself–we have to realize that moral law trumps all of our laws, period.

I’m very proud to be a Catholiv, a subject of Christ and His Vicar; but I often get so tired of being an American.

 

[Angela_Tate]

This is not a Pro-Life movement, Roe v Wade, anti-abortion thread.
This thread is about conservative broadcasters’ current approach (or lack thereof) toward the Pro-Life movement now that several of the republican candidates (no names or references, please) are pro-choice.

If you wish to contribute to this discussion please keep the focus on broadcasters’ approach. Do not get side-tracked on the Pro-Life movement because that topic belongs in a different forum.